Connect with us

Tech

More Censorship: Controversial Right-Wing YouTuber Nick Fuentes is Booted From Platform, Even Ben Shapiro Says It’s Too Far

Fuentes received the boot after supposed terms of service violations.

Published

on

Controversial right-wing Youtube personality Nick Fuentes has been booted from the Google-owned platform, as they continue to ramp up their campaign of Orwellian censorship.

“This account has been terminated due to multiple or severe violations of YouTube’s policy prohibiting hate speech,” they announced at the link of Fuentes’ former channel.

Trending: Dr. Anthony Fauci Plotted ‘Global Vaccine Action Plan’ with Bill Gates Before Pushing COVID Panic and Doubts About Hydroxychloroquine Treatments

take our poll - story continues below

Are Democrats and the Fake News Media rooting for the Wuhan coronavirus to destroy the economy to remove Trump?

  • Are Democrats and the Fake News Media rooting for the Wuhan coronavirus to destroy the economy to remove Trump? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Fuentes has come to prominence in recent months as his fans have frequently asked pointed questions toward conservatives like TPUSA Founder Charlie Kirk, Congressman Dan Crenshaw, and “Never Trump” leader Ben Shapiro who they feel are insufficiently right-wing. This has caused Fuentes to receive increased mainstream scrutiny, with many of his critics alleging he is a Holocaust denier, a charge that he vehemently denies.

Others who have been banished from popular social media platforms are speaking out on Fuentes’ behalf.

“Nick Fuentes has been banned from YouTube,” journalist and Congressional candidate Laura Loomer wrote on her Telegram account. “Not good. Censorship is getting out of control. He shouldn’t have been silenced.”

“The government hasn’t done a damn thing about censorship of conservatives online. Zero. The “conservative billionaires” have done less than zero,” noted Jacob Wohl.

“Reminder: “Hate speech” means being funny and popular while Right-wing,” banished provocateur Milo Yiannopolous wrote on Telegram.

“I would not be surprised if Michelle Malkin starts losing her accounts soon. Facebook’s rationale for nuking me was my support for Tommy Robinson, and she’s gone way further than that,” Yiannopolous added.

Malkin, who will be appearing alongside Fuentes at the America First Political Action Conference in Washington D.C. later this month, denounced YouTube in a post, also assigning the blame to “Conservative Inc.” voices for agitating against Fuentes.

Even Shapiro, who has a public feud with Fuentes, has come out against his censorship by YouTube.

Other prominent right-wing voices have voiced opposition to YouTube’s censorship of Fuentes as well:

YouTube’s parent company Google has been exposed for using their immense monopoly power to punish their political opponents, with a focus on manipulating the outcome of the election in November.

An insider leaked explosive documents to Project Veritas exposing Google’s illicit scheming last year.

The Big Brother crackdown against right-wing speech will only continue to intensify from Silicon Valley in the months to come.

Bypass Tech Censorship!

Facebook, Twitter and Google are actively restricting conservative content through biased algorithms. Silicon Valley doesn't want you to read our articles. Bypass the censorship, sign up for our newsletter now!

Bypass Tech Censorship!

Facebook, Twitter and Google are actively restricting conservative content through biased algorithms. Silicon Valley doesn't want you to read our articles. Bypass the censorship, sign up for our newsletter now!

Have a hot tip for Big League Politics?

Got a hot news tip for us? Photos or video of a breaking story? Send your tips, photos and videos to tips@bigleaguepolitics.com. All hot tips are immediately forwarded to BLP Staff.

Have something to say? Send your own guest column or original reporting to submissions@bigleaguepolitics.com.

Tech

Banished Journalist Laura Loomer’s $1.5 Billion Lawsuit Against Tech Giants Will Be Heard in Court

Loomer will have her day in court.

Published

on

Banished journalist and Florida U.S. House candidate Laura Loomer’s lawsuit against Big Tech will be heard in the court of law following an order in the D.C. Circuit on Thursday.

Loomer is accusing tech giants such as Google, Apple, Facebook and Twitter of conspiring to suppress conservative voices on their platforms. The lawsuit is challenging these monolithic corporations for allegedly violating antitrust law as well as the 1st Amendment of the Constitution.

Her lawsuit had been previously tossed out by U.S. District Judge Trever N. McFadden, a Trump appointee to the bench, who stated that “while selective censorship of the kind alleged by the plaintiffs may be antithetical to the American tradition of freedom of speech, it is not actionable under the First Amendment unless perpetrated by a state actor.” However, Loomer was able to use a recent court ruling to resurrect her lawsuit despite the initial setback.

Loomer’s legal team, led by the right-wing political interest group Freedom Watch, used the precedent of Packingham v. North Carolina, a ruling which determined that it was unconstitutional to ban sex offenders from social media. The case essentially set the precedent that social media is a 1st Amendment right.

take our poll - story continues below

Are Democrats and the Fake News Media rooting for the Wuhan coronavirus to destroy the economy to remove Trump?

  • Are Democrats and the Fake News Media rooting for the Wuhan coronavirus to destroy the economy to remove Trump? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

“Many of the principles set forth by the Supreme Court in Packingham lead to what appellants believe is the natural progression of the law to hold that social media companies are liable for First Amendment violations, given the progression of technology and its infiltration into the daily lives of nearly every single person,” Loomer’s team said in their final brief presented to the court.

Loomer points to Twitter banning her from the platform at the end of 2018 after she said that Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) adheres to a religion in which “women are abused” and “forced to wear the hijab.” She was similarly banned from Instagram for her assertion that Islam is “a cancer on humanity,” and Facebook, which owns Instagram, quickly followed suit and banned her even though the offending post was not made on that platform.

Loomer still cannot get her accounts restored despite the fact that she is running for the U.S. House in Florida’s 21st Congressional District, which could be considered a form of electoral interference.

Through her legal fight against the tech giants, Loomer is forcing them to reveal that they are no longer neutral platforms:

The tech behemoth Facebook has admitted that it is a publisher while defending its arbitrary censorship of banished journalist Laura Loomer, according to court documents.

Facebook banned Loomer’s account from their platform during a purge of popular conservative voices that happened in May. Others targeted by the purge included Milo Yiannopoulos, Alex Jones and Paul Joseph Watson. Loomer is striking back with a lawsuit that is unearthing some interesting revelations about the social media monolith.

“Under well-established law, neither Facebook nor any other publisher can be liable for failing to publish someone else’s message,” Facebook’s attorneys wrote.

Facebook actually has the audacity to claim that their 1st Amendment rights are being violated by Loomer’s lawsuit, in a total contorting of reality. They have filed a motion to dismiss the case.

“She claims Facebook labeled her as a ‘dangerous’ person who promotes hate – yet, the First Amendment has long protected such statements because they are opinions that are not capable of being proven true or false,” Facebook’s attorneys claim in their dismissal motion.

Right now, Facebook is protected under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act from being held liable for the content published on their platform. This special exemption worked fine when the social network engaged in relative neutrality, but those days are no more as Big Tech is at war with conservative and pro-Trump voices.

Loomer hopes to have her ability to communicate fully restored and to make Big Tech pay for infringing on her basic rights.

Continue Reading
It's time to name Antifa a terror org! Sign your petition now!


Trending